The failure of ERA

As I was wrapping up the ratified amendments, I had thought I might spend some time on other acts and sections of the United States legal code. Parts I had in mind include Title IX (passed before the Equal Rights Amendment failed, and criticized by many of the ERA's critics), the Civil Rights Act, Voting Rights Act, Fair Housing Act, and the Americans with Disabilities Act.

Previous posts have already covered that this kind of legislation is often a way of detailing how constitutional protections work, and how they will be enforced, as well as how often these principles go back to the Equal Protection clause. Two weeks ago I posted on clear issues of unequal protection.

If people don't believe in the values that the law supports, they are less likely to comply with the law. That can play out differently, based on how widespread the belief is. When the federal government strongly supports school integration, National Guard escorts may be used to force the issue. When the segregationists then switch to private schools, there may be undercover work to see if there is racial exclusion being practiced. Often de facto segregation prevails as people keep finding new ways to support it.

In the case of the Voting Rights Act, it has faced constant challenges. Those challenges eventually reached a Supreme Court that struck down some protections based on the argument that they were no longer necessary. It would be laughable if it hadn't resulted in disenfranchisement that had a direct impact on the election.

In Why We Lost the ERA, Mansbridge admits that in many ways the passage would not have had an impact. This was both because some legislation had already passed and because some areas were unlikely to be affected based on traditional areas of exception.

I still feel like it could have been incredibly important symbolically. When the key issues that prevent us from truly progressing are people stubbornly clinging to the past, symbolically saying "Yes, women are equal and the law will uphold that," can matter.

"Section 1. Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.

Section 2. The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

Section 3. This amendment shall take effect two years after the date of ratification."

Having that language enshrined in the Constitution would have mattered. It's not that there wouldn't constantly be people pushing back against it, just as they have continued to push back against Civil Rights Legislation, but there is still a power.

We had a chance to do something good and we didn't. That echoes.

And it puts me in opposition to my church, so next week will be about that.